Sunday, November 10, 2024

Trying to set things right

The issue of marital stability is an important one but is often treated simplistically on social media. The argument is often that a husband just has to be nice to his wife and she is certain to reciprocate, or else he just has to be masculine and she will revere him for life.

I was reading a particular case study recently, that of Dr Ashley Solomon, an American psychologist. She gave what seems to me to be a more typical account of modern divorce, at least amongst the professional classes: 

A few friends joked that a decade or two beyond the wedding season of life, we were now in the divorce era. As I looked around at the community of newly single women around me, that certainly seemed to be true. We weren’t all the same age, but there were some other obvious similarities. We all had children, mostly ones that were potty trained but still quite dependent on us. We all had careers, not just jobs, and we cared a lot about the work we did. And, with some particular exceptions, we had exes who by and large were decent humans, but were not the right humans for us. And, I realized, we’d all been the person in our marriages to choose to divorce.

Her circle of female friends all chose to divorce largely decent men when the youngest child was becoming semi-independent (toddler/preschool age). That is also the pattern I have observed amongst my own colleagues.

What is particularly interesting about Dr Solomon is that she is determined to make her second marriage more successful than her first, and so she gives an honest account of where she herself may have gone wrong. 

Her first insight is the most significant. She writes of her efforts to improve her own relationship skills that,

I practice seeing my partner as a whole and distinct human being with separate experiences, desires, and needs.

One of the hardest things to acknowledge about my experience of my last relationship was that I struggled significantly to honor the fullness of who he was. I knew conceptually, of course, that he was his own person, but in practice, particularly in moments of tension or intense emotion, that reality could easily disappear.

I’ve had two teachers in this area – the infamous Esther Perel and the wise Jordan Dann. Dann talks often in her work about differentiation – the ability to see our partner as distinct rather than merged. And Perel talks about the importance of holding paradox, the space where two truths can co-exist at the very same time.

If you would have asked me ten years ago if I had skills for both, I would have said yes, and I would have been wrong. When I became triggered through upset or conflict, I’d regress to a place where I could only really see my own truth. I’d need him to understand it, to validate it, and ultimately to hold it up as the final and real truth.

Growing for me has meant being able the midst of hurt to regulate my own emotions enough to see – fully see – that there is another human on the other side whose thoughts, feelings, and beliefs were valid, even when in seeming opposition to mine. I’ll be honest, it’s annoying AF to do. But it’s been the only way to have a mature partnership.

This is sometimes referred to as solipsism - a difficulty in seeing a reality outside that of your own mind. My own theory is that it is connected to a lack of self-awareness, this being the ability to stand above your own immediate thoughts, feelings, impulses and appetites - and to successfully direct and regulate these through the use of our reasoning powers. 

What I suspect is that many women, even obviously intelligent ones like Dr Solomon, can struggle with self-awareness. Their sense of self is centred more in their thoughts and feelings, rather than in the directing power of the mind standing above them, and so it is those thoughts and feelings they need validated to feel secure and "seen" in who they are.

It is not that Dr Solomon does not have self-awareness, but, as she herself puts it, when experiencing "tension" the emotions would take over and she would struggled to regulate them, so that her partner would no longer be perceived to be "distinct" but would be "merged". 

Note too the way that Dr Solomon talks about truth. She talks about "my truth". Even in her attempt to improve her understanding, the best she can offer is to try to balance out her truth with his truth. She is caught in a kind of subjectivism that is different to the way that men generally think about things. Most men would not say "well, this is my truth" - it would not make sense to men to pitch things this way. There is a truth that the reasoning power is trying to grasp, so there is either truth or falsity in doing so. 

What larger conclusion can we draw from this? Well, it is important to recognise that the level of self-awareness that a person has, whether man or woman, will run along a continuum. It will not be the same for each. I think we should acknowledge that when a woman has low self-awareness that this is likely to contribute to the difficulties present within a marriage. If she does not see him as a distinct person, but is caught within her own subjective emotional states and can only frame the marriage through these, then there will be errors in perception that he will have little control over. She might, if she truly merges him with her mind, believe that he is thinking and experiencing the same things that she is - the same unhappiness or discontent or anxiety or doubt.

I think this is why it is so important for a girl to have a loving upbringing in a stable home and with a close and supportive relationship with her father. If she is subject to her flow of emotion, then a marriage is more likely to succeed if these emotions are mostly warm and positive ones, and if there is less of the "tension" that moves a woman away from self-awareness.

The second relationship skill that Dr Solomon is working on is not expecting a husband to read her mind:

I make direct requests rather than expecting him to read my mind or anticipate my needs.

Smart people and relationship experts have been proclaiming this forever, but it took me a while to get over the hump. Writer Anne Lamott said, “Expectations are resentments waiting to happen.” And therapist Terry Real says, “Great relationships mean more assertion up front and less resentment on the backend.”

When I got messily honest with myself, I realized how little I actually communicated my needs to my first partner, passive aggressiveness notwithstanding...

Relationship books will tout this one often, reminding us to ask for what we want. But I want to go a layer deeper. Because for me, acknowledging the need to ask was part of the challenge. And that was hard for me – and, I believe, for many of us – because I was holding on to a fantasy in which my partner was supposed to be so attuned to me that he could know my needs without me having to make them known. We could think of this as the fantasy of having a fully emotionally available parent, someone who not only meets our needs, but anticipates them. For those of us who didn’t have this, which is perhaps most of us, this need can feel unresolved, and we might be seeking it in our partner. But, of course, because they are human and in fact, not our parents, they will stumble even with the best of intentions.

Resolving this means, to me, acknowledging the wish for a fully mind-reading, selfless partner who will meet every need before I know I have it, and then turning to my real partner and thanking him for just doing his best.

Many married men will have experienced this. The idea is "if you were the right one, you would know what I need even before I do". It does significant damage, because when the husband inevitably fails, the wife then draws the conclusion that he is not the right one after all. 

Where does this come from? Dr Solomon puts it down to a need for reparenting, and that is a very reasonable explanation. Another possible explanation is that the husband is being subject to "apotheosis". Just as men sometimes see the transcendent through the form of an actual woman ("you are an angel"), women can see men as representing some aspect of the divine. The problem is when the balance between the real all too human man and what he represents of the transcendent is lost, and he is expected to become something like a divine therapist who can wash away the sins of the world for his wife. A real husband cannot be omniscient (knowing her wants or needs before she does) or omnipotent (having the power to heal all hurts even those stemming from childhood traumas). 

Again, a woman who grew up in a loving, stable family home and who had a happy childhood will be less likely to need either reparenting or to vainly seek trauma healing from her husband. It might possibly help as well if a woman is brought up with a sincere religious belief so that she places the omniscient and omnipotent power where it truly belongs rather than with her husband.

What I'd like to finish with is the importance of men learning to harness their self-awareness in order to take control of a culture and guide it toward the good.

When we look at a workplace culture it is considered acceptable for there to be a mission for that company, and for there to be professional standards for all employees to respect and adhere to, and even consequences for those employees who act in ways that damage the company and its mission. There exists, in other words, a "form" or "shape" to the company and its culture that people who sign on to that company, and who expect to benefit from it, must adhere to.

I don't think it's surprising that women are, in modern life, often more successful in their role of employees of a company than of being wives. It is because there is a clear form to workplace life, one that gives external direction to what must be done to succeed within that culture. In a corporate culture it is expected that we self-regulate our thoughts, emotions and actions to serve the larger mission of that company.

But in modern family life? This is now understood to be the realm of pure emotion. And so a lack of self-awareness becomes fatal, because there is no external form or shape to keep things in check. It becomes a more chaotic and unstable realm, despite its importance to the good of the individual and the good of the larger community.

How can the family have better shape? Well, we could re-emphasise the significance of the mission of each family. Part of that would be a more positive view of the "offices" of husband and wife and father and mother, i.e., an understanding that these roles allow us to express aspects of our manhood and womanhood that then fulfil a part of our telos in life - our ultimate purposes. 

It would help also if men were encouraged to make the best use of their own faculty for self-awareness, so that they could assume some degree of leadership within the family, one which requires a level of maturity and wisdom to truly achieve.

A genuinely religious dimension might also help. If we are motivated in our duties to other members of our families by a love of God and a desire to serve God, and therefore a deeper sense of doing what is right, then there will be a more stable form to family life.

Finally, it would help if some of the politically motivated attacks on men were to cease. A woman with low self-awareness is always going to have problems with authority because she doesn't have the sense that there is a logos embedded within reality, and she will not then see that a vision of the good might be based on objective reality. And so any assertion of shape or form might seem to her an external imposition rather than something she can discern as an aspect of her own reality. So low self-awareness women have a choice. They can rebel along Jezebel lines or they can submit to something despite it seeming to be external to them. 

Of course, it matters that what they submit to represents a genuine good. And, if it is a genuine good, it matters that these women can respect the men who attempt to lead with it. That is made difficult when there is a "man bad, woman good" narrative, as we currently have, or when there is an assumption that all social interactions are based on the pursuit of self-interest. Men need to act for the good of the communities they belong to, including their families, and to be respected for doing so, if we wish to give family life a shape that pure emotion cannot achieve. 

3 comments:

  1. A few things occur to me.

    First, I can’t help but notice the rather direct inversion of an accusation that feminists sometimes (but regularly) level at men: that they want their wives to be their mothers. Pick up after them, cook their food, clean their clothes, etc.. While it’s fairly absurd (and both uncharitable and undoubtedly malicious) to characterize domestic support, which includes those activities, as mothering of an adult baby, it also falls far short of the much more direct desire Dr. Solomon voices for her husband to be her father. Because what else is a man whose first care is providing a space where all her needs are met before she even knows them? What fully developed adult needs such a space?

    Second, and this is a thought that could likely be developed further: her vision of a perfect husband who can read her mind and does things for her (really, does everything important for her) at first glance doesn’t not appear very concordant with liberalism. It doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for her to make independent decisions for herself (in practice). Of course, since liberalism eventually reduces to demanding a world of infinite but meaningless choice perhaps it’s actually perfectly concordant: liberalism as mediated by the female mindset. All real cares, concerns, and needs taken care of so that all energy can be devoted to enjoying endless meaningless choice. (Because in this fantasy of a mind-reading husband what is she doing with her time?).

    Third, another inversion jumps out at me which is that the fantasy described is very close to a perfect inversion of a sort of Platonic ideal of marital roles: woman as helpmeet and master of the domestic space, taking charge of all cares therein so that her husband doesn’t have to and has a harmonious “core” to support him in his role of dealing externally with the world (protecting the household, managing its business with the outside world to see that it is provided for, negotiating its place amongst the other households of the community, etc.). The sort of woman that can expect to have that domestic space provided for her (rather than having that responsibility herself) is a child of the household still under her parents rather than a married adult in her own right. (So how much of this comes down to women who feel they were inadequately raised and are still juvenile?).

    Fourth, on the subject of recommendations, it touches on a subject that’s been floating around the Orthosphere somewhat lately which is women’s work. Many have pointed out that before the Industrial Revolution upended things the household was as much an economic unit as anything else, the main distinction being very upper class women who would direct their energies into their husbands’ political careers as well, the predecessors to the modern girlboss. Perhaps households would be more stable with a reintroduction of that economic component, a more organic and wholesome substitute for the office work that has supplanted it and where women mostly behave themselves. If nothing else, it would make the “marriage as partnership towards some greater purpose” aspect more obvious to women, who might on that account be less tempted to blow up their marriages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for these observations. I'm particularly interested in your last point - it makes sense to me, but I'll respond at length this evening.

      Delete
    2. Guest Ghast, those are all interesting contributions and worthy of comment, but I'd like to focus on your last point.

      Some of the difficulties of marriage are perennial. When I read Judith Hurwich's book on marriage in the German nobility from 1400 to 1600 there were many "the more things change..." moments. For instance, one husband complained that the paterfamilias of a noble family should never criticise a husband in front of his wife because it damaged the wife's respect for him & therefore her attraction. Similarly, the female characters in Jane Austen's novels include women who settle for men they aren't attracted to; women who can't resist "Chad" (or "cad" in those days); and hypergamous heroines who draw out the softer side of Mr Rich Aloof.

      However, there was definitely something of a break in normal programming in the mid-1800s when feminism took off as a mass movement. Why then? The combination of a Millian liberalism & the effects of the Industrial Revolution are the likely culprits. English society jumped in wealth from about the 1830s. A lot of the feminists came from middle-class backgrounds. One of their complaints was that the lot of women like themselves had become much easier & that there was no longer enough for them to do at home compared to previous generations.

      I'm not sure that the middle-class family had as much of a mission as other social classes. Genuinely upper class women had to provide heirs, run a large household staff, & promote their husband's political careers through social influence. Farming wives provided boys who could work the farm, they fed the farm labourers, and they provided some of the lighter farm work. Urban working-class women, before the Industrial Revolution, would have supported the cottage industry.

      This is even more obvious if you go back to the times described by Judith Hurwich. Trying to promote a noble lineage was no easy task. If a family's reputation was damaged it meant a drop in social rank in which the daughters could no longer marry at the same level. Women who did act immorally could be sent by a paterfamilias to a remote part of the estate - or not receive a dowry for marriage.

      So there was an important mission attached to the family, which then helped to shape the behaviour of those engaged in family life. There was supposed to be affection between the spouses, but marriage was not based on pure emotion alone.

      So I am open to ideas about how family might regain some of its former role, including an economic role. But it won't work if husband and wife are conceived as careerists acting from personal ambition - family will then be perceived to be a potential limitation rather than the vehicle through which economic purposes are pursued.

      Delete